Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 13, 2026

Field Postmortem Rabies Rapid Immunochromatographic Diagnostic Test for Resource-Limited Settings with Further Molecular Applications
Published on: June 29, 2020
A novel coproparasitological diagnostic technique in wild animals: agreement with established reference methods
Aksa Ingrid Vieira Batista1, Arthur Willian de Lima Brasil2, Victor Fernando Santana Lima3
1Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB), 12 Rodovia, Areia, Paraíba, PB-079, Brazil.
Abstract:
Coproparasitological examinations are essential non-invasive tools for detecting endoparasites in wild animals; however, the lack of methodological standardization and the variable performance of available techniques remain important challenges. This study evaluated the agreement and comparative performance of the Simplified Parasite Detection Method (SPDM) relative to three routinely used coproparasitological comparator methods: spontaneous sedimentation, Willis-Mollay flotation, and Mini-FLOTAC®. A total of 143 pooled fecal samples from mammals, birds, and reptiles were analyzed. Overall, SPDM showed moderate to substantial agreement with the comparator methods (Cohen's κ = 0.509 [C.I 95% 0.362-0.656]; 0.624 [CI 95% 0.491-0.757]; p < 0.001), together with high relative specificity, negative predictive values, and overall agreement. In addition to its comparative performance, SPDM required approximately 5 min of processing time per sample, involved minimal laboratory infrastructure, and had a low implementation cost, making it a practical alternative for routine coproparasitological examinations in both laboratory and field settings. Comparative performance varied among animal groups, with the highest agreement observed in birds and lower agreement in reptiles, probably reflecting the limited sample size and biological characteristics of reptile feces. SPDM also detected parasitic structures in some samples classified as negative by the comparator methods, highlighting its potential as an additional coproparasitological technique. Because no independent gold standard was available, the diagnostic indices reported should be interpreted as measures of comparative performance relative to the evaluated comparator methods rather than estimates of absolute diagnostic accuracy.
